[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhT/ZTdRN+Gxfe8S@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:42:13 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
linux@...ck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/cpu/topology: don't write to immutable
cpu_present_mask
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07 2024 at 18:26, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Workaround the following oops:
> >
> > topology_hotplug_apic
> > topo_set_cpuids
> > set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
> > // write to __ro_after_init section after init
>
> Duh, yes.
>
> > adobriyan: I'm not sure what's going on, can it set unset bit here?
> > If not, then why does it repeat the job and set already set bits.
> >
> > Anyhow, let's not oops peoples' machines for now.
>
> Adding a bandaid to paper over the non-understood real problem is
> definitely not a good plan. I take this patch as a bug report.
>
> Proper fix below.
BTW., independently of the fix, warning about a too late set_cpu_possible()
might still make sense - clearly it *can* be called too late by
architecture init code :-)
It's not a performance-sensitive function in any case, so the extra
debugging code might not hurt.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists